[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

"We need – we need to – we need to consider immediate action inside Afghanistan now," Tenet remembers telling Rice, who was then National Security Advisor. "We need to – we need to move to the offensive."

Tenet also claims that the administration never had a serious debate about whether Iraq posed an imminent threat or whether to tighten existing sanctions before its 2003 invasion.

Tenet also tells 60 Minutes the way the Bush administration has used his now famous "slam dunk" comment — which he admits saying in reference to making the public case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — is both disingenuous and dishonorable.

"It's the most despicable thing that ever happened to me," Tenet says. "You don't do this. You don't throw somebody overboard just because it's a deflection. Is that honorable? It's not honorable to me."

Political nature has, by slavery of shortsightedness, dictated numerous courses that have in retrospect found to be not only fallacious but also immoral. Although thousands of such examples can be cited throughout history, only three such examples will be given in this article. These three are picked, because all involve the US as a party and are relatively recent.

1. The Mujahedin

As Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, Islamic fundamentalists rushed in from the region to defend the predominantly Islamic nation from the advancing infidel. The task seemed almost lost from the beginning, as a rag-tag band of impoverished and unorganized fighters attempted to defy one of the world’s two superpowers of the time.

Fortunately for them, that once supreme superpower was tenaciously antagonistic towards the other, which meant that the other superpower was always looking to undermine anything the other did. The US was therefore not far away from this conflict between the Mujahedin of Afghanistan and the Infidels of the USSR.

Shortsighted political nature dictated that the US should support the enemy of its enemy. Such action may prove beneficial for the present and immediate future, but it is not always the soundest recourse if the long-term future is considered.

Shortly, the US was knee deep in fighting this proxy war with the USSR. US funding, military training, military supplies, and logistical support were placed at the fingertips of the Warriors of God, in order to punish and repel the Communists. Within those ranks was, of course, the blooming Osama bin Laden. The training and support that was given to these Mujahedin helped them expel the Soviets, and placed them at a powerful position within Afghanistan, and later, globally as Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, the groomed puppy of the US, would grow up to rabidly bite the hand that fed it years later. The scar of that bite is now visible in Manhattan, and on the psyche of every American.

2. Saddam

Hostage taking, chants of “death to America,” and the vow to extend fundamental Islamic Revolution throughout the world was enough to scare the US into picking another junkyard dog to fend off the now hostile Iranians. Political nature, again through shortsightedness, dictated an allegiance with a shady character – Saddam.

Financial, military, and logistical support again poured into the hands of a criminal in order to combat a greater perceived threat. What’s worse and unforgivable is that a blind eye was turned to an utterly immoral occurrence: the use of chemical weapons by Saddam against Iranians. Don Rumsfeld visited Saddam personally, shook his hand, and gave him a nod of approval with his beady little eyes. That photograph, along with the countless others of disfigured bodies of Iranians and Kurds from chemical attacks, will forever haunt the psyche of every Iranian, if not every human.

Years later, with a slight change of political climate, the once again rabid dog that the US kept as a pet was identified for what it truly was, and was itself attacked. However, by that time, that Iraqi dictator had already done too much damage, and the wrongs of the past could not be rectified.

3. The Islamic Republic

In the present we are potentially witnessing the once again political shortsightedness and desperation of US policy. In its attempt to deal with the error of example #2, the US went to war with Saddam’s Iraq. After 4 years of turmoil and occupation, the US has found itself chasing shadows. A demoralized US constituency and Congress demands every day that the US abandon its efforts in Iraq, which appear fruitless to most.

Out of the fiasco of this Iraqi invasion has emerged an Islamic Republic with more power and boldness than ever. It is a vicious cycle, whereby the civil turmoil leads to loss of US authority and influence, which leads to more Islamic chaotic authority, which enables further civil turmoil and so forth.

In its predicament, the US appears to be reaching at straws. The political need for immediate gratification has apparently influenced the man who once called the IR part of an Axis of Evil to reconsider his call for outright demolition of that axis, and simply ask that the axis kindly reorient its angle. This is echoed in the words of Rice, who said that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to “have a change in regime behavior."

Political shortsightedness knows no bounds. The historical errors of the US follow each other, and it seems that one has actually led to another. To change stance with regard to such a regime will only prolong the inevitable showdown of the US with the Mullahs. Such prolongation and retreat will only lead to the emergence of a more powerful, determined, and emboldened enemy to face in the future.

Elected politicians have a responsibility to not only serve and protect their nation, but to follow a moral path. Many a times have politicians allowed morality to take a back seat to their shortsighted goals. Every time, such a policy has proven to be a mistake both pragmatically as well as morally. This is why elected officials need to be held to a higher moral standard and of higher philosophical character than what is currently deemed acceptable.

Aligning itself with the likes of Mujahedin and Saddam has been a pragmatic and moral mistake. The immoral enemy of my enemy ought not be my friend. Why? First, because morality must be a main goal in and of itself. Second, because the immoral enemy of my enemy will eventually come after me once our common enemy has been neutralized. History is a witness to this.

I have cited two examples of the past, where the US’ need for immediate gratification proved disastrous in the long term. Currently, the third example is unfolding. It is too late for the first two, but the third error in the making can yet be averted, should the US choose to reconsider its currently charted course with respect to Iran.

A rabid dog will bite by nature. One cannot tell it to change its biting behavior, and expect to safely lie down next to it after making such a statement. A rabid dog must be neutralized. Requests and appeals made to it will be in vain. An axis cannot change its angle, and a dog cannot cease to be rabid.

Reject Dr. Rice Failed Diplomacy Mess With MullahsDr. Rice also told the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior."

Our major difference with Secretary Dr. Rice and President Bush Admin in past 6 years is regarding the fact that the great majority of Iranian people are asking for Secular Democracy, Free Society, Human Rights and complete removal of Islamic Hostage-Takers, Invaders and Occupiers of Iran and President Bush Admin is talking about Democracy not Secular Democracy and ignore Iranian people demands even after their clear failure in Iraq while they were playing EU3 Iran delay game without any good results….. EVEN Dr. Rice is planning to meet with the Taazi Mullahs Terror, Torture masters and Rapists in near future http://www.ft.com/cms/s/3f96545e-f0f9-11db-838b-000b5df10621,_i_rssPage=4e612cca-6707-11da-a650-0000779e2340.html . Dr. Rice is planning to meet with Taazi foreign minister of Mullahs against the wishes of freedom-loving Iranian people…. It is very sad that Dr. Rice invites Fatima Taazi the possible pro IRI lobbyist agent to ask question from her while non of the freedom-loving Iranian women or Secular Iranian Women Activists in Washington have the same chance to ask questions source: http://activistchat.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=30910#30910 . Dr. Rice vision of Democracy will fail because she is not faithful to the following 8 points. Iraq is very good example of bad deed to allow Islamists to run the Iraqi government in the name of non secular pro Mullah Islamist Mafia Democracy …..

Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.

I think any US Admin foreign policies from (Right, Center, Left) that does not pass the above generic test cases, will not be very successful in long term, despite the fact that might look good for special interest group in short term (Iraq, Iran, …..)

Dr. Rice also told the Financial Times that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior."

It is time that Dr. Rice should explain to American people why the government should have spent over 500 billion dollars in Iraq, allow over 20,000 American soldiers become wounded and over 2000 being killed to appease Mullahs Terror and Torture masters? What is the logic for all these mess in Iraq and Iran … ? The following video clip says it all about past 6 years failed Diplomacy with Rapist Mullahs by Dr. Rice and others …. :

Good Luck Dr. Rice with your failed diplomacy with Islamist Scorpion Occupiers Of Iran (Taazi) For Over Past 28 Years ....

Whether we are a public official, a senior executive, or just an ordinary person, it can be downright harmful to only listen to the yes men and yes women with secrecy obsession. Dissent is not only patriotic. It is worth listening to. In 2006 Election Exit Poll over 70% of American people lost their confiedence on USA government and elected officials from both parties to do anything right because of yes women, yes men and lobbyists.

We the Free Iran Activists, Iranian-American, American-Iranian like great scholar Professor Richard Nelson Frye from Harvard University are committed to Greatness of United States of America and Iran based on Secular Democracy , Free Society, Human Rights and as American Founding Fathers expected of us as responsible people we are going to be critical of elected officials from any political parties when they are moving in the wrong direction to please few lobbyists in Washington or EU3 against long term National Interest of American people.

ActivistChat Guideline Item 13 wrote:

We are Free Iran Activists and Watch Group monitoring high government officials, Journalists , writers and scholars words and their actions based on the following direction from James Madison:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men! over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. "
The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).

If you replace few words in the Lyrics "They Don't Care About Us By Michael Jackson" then it becomes very similar situation of freedom-loving Iranian people story in past 28 years.

tell me what has become of my life
i have a wife and two children who love me
i am the victiom of (police) Islamic Fascists brutality and Neo Colonialists Appeasers (EU3 - Russia - China) Blood Oil Lobbyist In Washington , now.
i'm tired of being the victim of hate,
you're rapin' me of my pride
of for god's sake
i look to heaven to fulfill its prophecy....
set me free

tell me what has become of my rights
am i invisible cause you ignore me?
your proclamation promised me free liberty, now.
i'm tired of being the victim of shame
they're throwing me in a class with a bad name
i can't believe this is the land from which i came.
you know i really do hate to say
the government don't wanna say
but if Cyrus The Great (roosevelt) was livin',
he would't let this be, no no.

As world is learning about the facts behind 15 British Navy personnel hostage crisis who were blindfolded, bound and subjected to “constant psychological pressure” during their 13 days in captivity, we condemn Revolutionary Guards illegal actions and at the same time declare the Iranian nation and her oldest culture as hostage of Islamist Scorpion occupiers of Iran for over past 28 years . As recent hostage Royal Marine Captain Chris said "Let me be absolutely clear: from the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option," now the free world leaders should have better understanding and accept that the 69 million unarmed Iranian nation as hostage of estimated 700,000 Revolutionary Guards, Mullahs, Militia and other security forces (Taazi) are not in control of their destination and must be given the hostage status by UN Security Council. To understand this statistics better according U.S. Department of Justice · Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics “ In 2005, over 7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2005 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults”
The 700,000 international Islamist criminals in Iran who are controlling Iranian nation as their hostages are less than 1 % of total Iran population and this is less than 3.2% criminals in USA and should be considered as small minority.

Hostage-taking has been part of the Revolutionary Guards and Islamic Republic’s strategy since its inception in 1979. In the first months of its existence, the Khomeinist regime seized and quickly released hundreds of Western hostages. The policy reached a crescendo in November 1979 when Khomeinist “students” raided the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days.

In the case of Bam Earthquake or Clerical genocide, they are responsible for over 30,000 death in Bam because the clerical regime supported a racketeering scheme that entailed seizing large chunks of land in Bam that would be used to build poorly designed and badly constructed houses and shops, subsequently issuing fatwas (religious opinions) that canceled previous orders of the Shah's government, which had banned such development in the earthquake-prone city. Iranian people call urgently on the UN and leaders of the free world to set up a committee to investigate the involvement of the clerical regime in crimes of Bam genocide, crimes of conspiracy to commit genocide and crimes against humanity according to the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and established International Law.

The Iranian people experienced the footsteps of Taliban in Iran with the same technique of hostage taking by using Sivand Dam to start flooding water as a tool to take Pasargad as their hostage that can be used for their evil intentions. The Islamist Scorpion Invaders and Occupiers Of Iran, Hostage-Takers, Terror/Torture Masters, and virus of Iranian society are set to destroy a major part of humankind's cultural heritage unless they are stopped. Please listen to the last clamor of Pasargad in the open letter to the world by http://www.savepasargad.com/ - If nuclear bombs endanger the lives of human beings, such acts of cultural genocide are actually just other sorts of destructive weaponry that annihilate the intellectual and spiritual lives of humans. Only those who have done what they were supposed to do now would not be ashamed in the eyes of the future generations.

Over the past 28 years the Islamic regime's agents, courts, judges and vigilantes have all committed acts of: murder, stoning, torture, assault, theft, destruction of property, arson, perjury, falsification of testimonials and material evidence, illegal surveillance, kidnapping, rape, blackmail, fraud, obstruction of justice, conspiracy to commit all of the above crimes, cover-ups and every other form of butchery and depredation.

It is the irony of history that in the land of Cyrus The Great, the birthplace of the first charter of the “Rights of Nations” and the “Declaration of Human Rights” over 2500 years ago, there is today no respect for human and civil rights by the Islamic regime. Cyrus, who was exceptionally tolerant of local religions and local customs and against slavery, is famous for freeing the 42,000 Jewish captives and allowing them to return to their homeland. His name appears twenty two times in the Bible. Were it not for Cyrus, it seems at least possible that the Jewish people would have become extinct in the fifth century BC. Unfortunately, present day Iran is ruled by a small group of Islamic Mafia Clerics who are the embodiment of evil and have no respect for Human Rights in this land which is the birthplace of Darius The Great, Babak, Avicenna (Ibn Sina), Ferdowsi, Khayyam, Hafaz, Saadi and Rumi. Iranian people need the help and full support from the leaders of the free world to destroy hostage takers with minimum bloodshed.

Iranian Culture In Few Words:
Good Words, Good Thoughts, Good Deeds.
"Crush not even the tiny ant that beareth a grain of corn, for she hath life, and sweet life is a boon."
From The Epic of Kings Masterpiece By Ferdowsi (935-1020) the world famous Persian (Iranian) poet.

Who Is a Taazi?
Being a Taazi is a frame of mind. Being a Taazi is a reflection of one's heart. Genetics have nothing to do with it. One is not born a Taazi by race or place of birth. One becomes a Taazi by choice.
A Taazi is someone who holds the nomadic Bedouin way of life and code of ethics above that of common human decency. A Taazi is someone who is willing to die and kill in the name of Allah. A Taazi is someone who has turned a deaf ear to his own heart and only listens to the call of hate and violence. A Taazi is someone who feels compelled to carry the Bedouin Barbarian Bylaws to ever-expanding spheres of servitude.

Islamic Barbarian Theocracy: Invaders and Occupiers of Iran Refer To It As TAAZI:
The name Islamic Republic of Iran is a misnomer. There is nothing Iranian about this regime, and these terrorists should not be allowed to use the word " Iran " to describe their regime. From now on, we the people refuse to refer to this illegitimate, tyrannical, barbaric, immoral, and foreign occupying force as "IRI," and will simply refer to it as the Islamic Republic, which is the epitome of all that is Taazi. The best examples of traitor-Taazis are the pro-Islamic Republic Taazis.

We appreciate the correct and honest statement by the President of the United States who has access to all confidential and top secret US government documents and demand the same clarity from other G8 leaders and condemn any kind of appeasement of hostage takers for short term profit taking and more trades with Taazi forces.

President Bush said:
“The same is true of Iran , a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end.”

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,"

WE, the undersigned, as members of the civilized freedom-loving people of the world protest and demanding from responsible journalists, writers, scholars and free world leaders to be fair with understanding about truth by differentiating Iranian people from TAAZI ruling class. Call urgently to refer to Iran and Iranian people correctly in their statements, News Reports headline, articles and recognize the following facts:
- Iranian is a culture.
- Iranian people should be declared as hostages and prisoners of TAAZI Islamofascist Clerical Regime without any control over the key decisions and their own destination.
- Iran has lost her Sovereignty as nation in past 28 years under Taazi occupation.
- " Iran Says" in the News report must be changed to "TAAZI Says"
- President-elect Ahmadinejad in News report must be changed to "TAAZI President Ahmadinejad" or "TAAZI President-thug Ahmadinejad"
- Iran 's Foreign Minister, in News report must be changed to TAAZI Foreign Minister .
- Freedom-loving Iranian people are considering the TAAZI Islamofascist as illegitimate system.
- Iranian people are declaring any contracts with the TAAZI Islamofascist as illegitimate and it is subject to review after Iran becomes FREE nation.
- Freedom-loving Iranian people are declaring the TAAZI as Terror/Torture Masters and ask the FREE world not to negotiate with Terrorists and Hostage Takers.
- Freedom-loving Iranian people are declaring the TAAZI Islamofascist Clerics and their TAAZI Supporters as a small minority and the Virus of Iranian Society.
- Freedom-loving Iranian People condemn wasted 20 Billion Dollars TAAZI Islamofascist Nuclear adventures that are not peaceful and is used by the TAAZI Mad Mullahs, TAAZI Revolutionary Guard, Terror and Torture Masters as an instrument for taking the Iranian people and world as their hostages.

Marcus Mabry wrote:

Think Again: Condoleezza Rice
By Marcus Mabry May/June 2007
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3781&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com
“Condi Is a Bush Loyalist”
For now. One of the secrets to the spectacular rise of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is that every boss she has ever worked for was convinced that she shared his worldview. And each, after she left his employ, was left scratching his head as he saw Rice make a 180degree turn away from the core beliefs he thought they shared. It happened with former National Security Advisor (NSA) Brent Scowcroft, who thought Rice was a rockribbed realist only to see her become the most ardent acolyte of idealist President George W. Bush and his “Freedom Agenda.” It even happened with former Stanford University President Gerhard Casper, for whom Rice served as provost and vice president—Stanford’s number two—and with her college political science professor Alan Gilbert, a leftist who says of Rice, “[Her interest] wasn’t really Great Power realism. If I had to put her in a category, I’d say she was closer to Marxist.”

More surprising than Gilbert’s assertion that Rice was a radical is the frequency with which you hear the same refrain: Across the political spectrum, many of Rice’s former bosses now question whether she ever identified with them at all. Rice’s central philosophy is power—not realist or idealist or Marxist, but personal power. She does what she has to in order to achieve it in whatever situation she finds herself, and, throughout her career, some would argue, opportunistically conformed to her mentors’ opinions in order to rise. “She did this with me and...

Reasons for Bush Admin Failure in Iraq, Iran policy Based On Condi Rice Policy Recommendation:
1- In Past 6 years Condi Rice Bush Admin ignored the push for Human Rights, Secular Democracy, Free Society for Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan
2- Condi Rice Bush Admin ignored Dr. Constantine C. Menges warning before his death regarding massive spending by Islamic Fascists occupiers of Iran in Iraq....
3- Condi Rice Bush Admin should not have allowed Islamic Fascists occupiers of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah to participate in political process when they don't agree with the concept of secular democracy ...
4- FREE Elections are meaningful process when we can establish FREE Societies .....
5- When there is no security, the Elections can not provide optimal solution.

Dr. Constantine Menges wrote:

And therefore the Iranian dictatorship diverted large amounts of money, probably billions of dollars, from the oil revenues from the things that could help the people of Iran in order to accomplish it’s, it’s power objectives in Iraq. And prepared the five major components of it’s secret war in Iraq to take over that country and to oppose the United States and force the United States out of the Middle-East.

Dr. Constantine Menges wrote:

And therefore the Iranian dictatorship diverted large amounts of money, probably billions of dollars, from the oil revenues from the things that could help the people of Iran in order to accomplish it’s, it’s power objectives in Iraq. And prepared the five major components of it’s secret war in Iraq to take over that country and to oppose the United States and force the United States out of the Middle-East.

Last edited by cyrus on Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:59 pm; edited 14 times in total

Regime Change as policy will be enacted the moment open hostilities ensues, on the battlefield. Till then, "behavior change" offeres the Iranian people the opportunity to do Regime Change Iranian style, with pressure being applied on the regime from free nations.

Sieze the moment.

Oppie Jan

Every coin has two sides,eventhough I appreciate your opptimistic approach I must remind you that one of the fundamental bases for Iranian nation to rise up against a barbarian IR is to be aware of the internation support. When Rice says We are not looking for regime change the avarage joe in Iran reads it as "they have closed the deal!!!"
This is how the Iranian mentality work and I doubt that they are far from the truth either and obviously they are not alone!

Did Condoleezza Rice Try to Make a Secret Deal With the Mullahs?
A tense confrontation within the Bush administration over the release of the Irbil 5.

By Michael Ledeen

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose tenure at Foggy Bottom began with such energy and fine language about support for freedom in the Middle East, is begging the Iranian foreign minister to come to a “future of Iraq” conference in Egypt next week. She told the Financial Times that it would be a “missed opportunity” if Minister Mottaki didn’t show up.

In the same interview, she denied ever thinking about regime change in Iran. Our Iran policy, according to the secretary, is to “have a change in regime behavior.” Some day she will perhaps explain how any rational person can believe this cast of characters capable of changing behavior that has been constant for 28 years.

We are back to the days when Madeleine Albright went to international meetings hoping to get a one-on-one with an Iranian minister so she could apologize for past American sins and get on with the glorious business of striking a grand bargain with the mullahs. When that didn’t work, President Clinton did the public apology, and his administration trotted out a number of unilateral concessions. His vice president even made a secret deal with the Russians permitting them to sell weapons and supply expertise for the Iranian nuclear program. All for naught; the mullahs spat in our face and continued as before.

The delusion that one can settle our little disagreements with the Islamic Republic, if only the right people sit around the right conference table, has seized every administration since Jimmy Carter. Every president has sent emissaries to talk, and every administration has made demarches to Tehran. To date, the net result is hundreds of dead Americans. And yet the delusion persists. Each time it fails, the deep thinkers at Foggy Bottom manage to convince the secretary of State of the moment that we are just one small concession away from success, and by and large the secretary goes for it, just as Secretary Rice has.

That is part of the background to her public pleading for talks with the mullahs. The other part has to do with the release of the British sailors and marines from captivity in Tehran. It was obvious to anyone familiar with the methods of the Islamic Republic that the British hostages were ransomed; the only question was the dimension of the payoff to Iran. Part of the answer emerged almost immediately, when an officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps magically appeared safe and sound somewhere in Iraq, and hotfooted it back home. Within hours, Iraqi officials were publicly hinting that the incarceration of the “Irbil 5” — more top IRGC intel officers captured by American forces, along with extensive documentation of their murderous activities in Iraq — would likely end quite soon. Why were they saying that?

The answer may be found between the lines of a story written shortly afterwards by one of Secretary Rice’s favorite journalists, Robin Wright of the Washington Post. It didn’t attract nearly the attention it deserved, perhaps because it was printed on Saturday, April 14 (full marks to Allahpundit over at Hot Air for spotting it). Here is what Robin Wright said:

After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents (sic) captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.

I’ve been told that “intense internal debate” is exactly right — it was one of the most contentious debates in quite a while. Wright reports that Vice President Cheney led the charge against Rice’s position, and I am told that Secretary of Defense Gates was equally adamant. This is reinforced by a statement by General Petraeus, to the effect that we intended to keep them and keep interrogating them as long as we had food and they had things to say. Moreover, I am told that the intensity of the debate was due to the fact that Rice was not merely recommending the release of the Iranians, but had informed the mullahs that we would release them.

That makes sense to me, because that promise — if indeed it was made — would help explain the release of the Brits. It would constitute the kind of swap the Iranians like to make, and it would have been a significant triumph for the mullahs: They had lost some of their key players in Iraq, and we would have paid them off as a favor to our British pals. Tony Blair would be able to claim straight-faced that he had made no concessions, and Condoleezza Rice would be able to claim, as she has of late in private conversation, that the Iranians had backed off.

You can be quite sure that the back-channel traffic between Washington and Tehran is full of new promises, if only the Iranians will come to Egypt and sit down with us. That would enable the secretary of State to save face when she makes her next concession. After all, we’re talking, aren’t we?

It’s too clever by half, and has obviously confused the president, who, in an interview with Charlie Rose, said we wouldn’t talk to them, but then again, perhaps we would (and Allahpundit spotted it again):

“What I’m not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians,” he told PBS’ “The Charlie Rose Show.”

Later, he said Rice and Iran’s foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. “They could. They could,” Bush said.

President Ahmadinejad was quick to pounce on the confusion. Never mind the talks in Egypt; he pronounced himself ready to meet with Bush, and with journalists in the room.

It’s worse than too clever. It’s retreat and appeasement, and the Iranians know it. It flows from denial that the mullahs are at war with us, and lapses into the belief that this war can be resolved by the tried and failed methods of traditional diplomacy. It won’t work, as our soldiers know full well. Surge or no surge, Iraq cannot have decent security unless it is protected against the Iranians and their Syrian puppets bordering the other side of the country. The Irbil 5 know a whole lot about Iranian/Syrian activities, and hence about the terror network in Iraq — in fact, they ran it — and that knowledge can help us and the Iraqis. The very idea that those intelligence officers should be sprung is a slap in the face to every coalition soldier, and Gates and Cheney were quite right to fight it.

A small victory, to be sure. But it’s a lot better than it would have been if the secretary of State had had her way. Years from now she may be grateful for it.

Why No Court-Martial For The Irbil 5 War Crimes ?????
Why The American Generals Did Not Court-Martial the Irbil 5 for war crimes, Killing American Soldiers, Killing Iraqi People and International Terror Activities Against freedom-loving Iranians outside Iran?
Why No Regime Change Policy For Iran But Iraq?

In an interview, Bush initially appeared to rule out any contact with Iran, a member of his "axis of evil."
"What I'm not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians," he told PBS' "The Charlie Rose Show."
Later, he said Rice and Iran's foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. "They could. They could," Bush said. Source: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Apr24/0,4670,BushIran,00.html

For first time we hear the past 6 years policy of the Bush administration that they were not looking for a regime change in Iran but to "have a change in regime behavior." As result of such a bad policy or intentional evil policy by Yes woman or Yes men, intentionally or unintentionally promoted Ahamadinejad with 1000 criminal records to become president , ignored insulting both Iranian and Israelis people while allowing EU, Russia, China playing game and Oil companies to milk Iran more and close your eye for increasing oppression and violating human rights by creating EU3 Nuclear discussion diversion game plan .

President Bush has clear understanding and accepted in his speech that the 69 million unarmed Iranian nation should be considered as hostage of estimated 700,000 Revolutionary Guards, Mullahs, Militia and other security forces (Taazi) are not in control of their destination and must be given the hostage status by UN Security Council. To understand this statistics better according U.S. Department of Justice • Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics “ In 2005, over 7 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at yearend 2005 -- 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 32 adults”
The 700,000 international Islamist criminals in Iran who are controlling Iranian nation as their hostages are less than 1 % of total Iran population and this is less than 3.2% criminals in USA and should be considered as small minority.

Hostage-taking has been part of the Revolutionary Guards and Islamic Republic’s strategy since its inception in 1979. In the first months of its existence, the Khomeinist regime seized and quickly released hundreds of Western hostages. The policy reached a crescendo in November 1979 when Khomeinist “students” raided the US Embassy in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage for 444 days.

Now President Bush should consider to clarify for both American People and Iranian people his past failed policy with a member of his "axis of evil" and answer many questions. Why the government should have spent over 500 billion dollars in Iraq war, allow over 20,000 American soldiers become wounded and over 2000 getting killed? What is the logic for all these mess in Iraq, regime change in Iraq but no regime change in Iran … ? Why we have not helped the 69 million unarmed Iranian nation as hostage of mullahs to become free? Why the commander in chief and American Generals did not punish Mullahs in Iran who are responsible for sending Arms and money to Iraq (Not 69 million Iranian people Hostages who are pro American)?

Why is there even discussion about releasing of the Irbil 5 Terror Master when the Generals should send them to public Court-martial for Terrorist activities and war crimes ?

We appreciate the correct and honest statement by the President of the United States who has access to all confidential and top secret US government documents and demand the same clarity from other G8 leaders and condemn any kind of appeasement of hostage takers for short term profit taking and more trades with Taazi forces.

President Bush said:
“The same is true of Iran , a nation now held hostage by a small clerical elite that is isolating and repressing its people. The regime in that country sponsors terrorists in the Palestinian territories and in Lebanon -- and that must come to an end.”

"Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,"

President Bush should consider to inform public what was his past 6 years foeign policy to avoid another Sixty years of failure?

Whether you are a public official, a senior executive, or just an ordinary person, it can be downright harmful to only listen to the yes men and yes women with secrecy obsession. Dissent is not only patriotic. It is worth listening to. In 2006 Election exit poll over 70% of American people lost their confidence on USA government policies and elected officials from both parties to do anything right because of yes women, yes men and lobbyists without any consideration for American National interest.

We the Free Iran Activists, Iranian-American, American-Iranian like great scholar Professor Richard Nelson Frye from Harvard University are committed to Greatness of United States of America and Iran based on Secular Democracy , Free Society, Human Rights and as American Founding Fathers expected of us as responsible people we are going to be critical of elected officials from any political parties when they are moving in the wrong direction to please few lobbyists in Washington or EU3 against long term National Interest of American people.

ActivistChat Guideline Item 13 wrote:

We are Free Iran Activists and Watch Group monitoring high government officials, Journalists , writers and scholars words and their actions based on the following direction from James Madison:
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men! over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. "
The Federalist No. 51 (James Madison).

The following video clip says it all about past 6 years failed Diplomacy with Rapist Mullahs by Dr. Rice and others …. :

Andrei Sakharov (1921-1989) was a Soviet physicist who became, in the words of the Nobel Peace Committee, a spokesman for the conscience of mankind. He was fascinated by fundamental physics and cosmology, but he had to spent two decades designing nuclear weapons. The acknowledged father of the Soviet hydrogen bomb, he contributed perhaps more than anyone else to the military might of the USSR. But it was his top secret experience as a leading nuclear expert that was instrumental in making Sakharov one of the most courageous critics of the Soviet regime, a human rights activist and the first Russian to win the Nobel Peace Prize. He helped bring down one of history’s most powerful dictatorships. This exhibit tells about Sakharov’s extraordinary life.

The connection Sakharov saw between the violation of human rights and international violence has become increasingly recognized. Scholars find that nations with broad and solid political rights (that is, democracies) have rarely if ever warred on one another. But repression at home often leads to conflict abroad. See this essay (S. Weart) and this Democratic Peace site (R.J. Rummel).

Oppenheimer wrote:

But seriously, I think it's for the Iraqi gov. to put them on trial being that their crimes were carried out in soverign Iraq territory.

Non secular Iraqi gov with some members are connected to Mullahs, is the biggest joke of our time and failure.
WASHINGTON Apr 26, 2007 (AP)— Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, depicted the situation there as "exceedingly complex and very tough" and stated that he has not seen anything as bad as Iraq ….
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=3083064
I Trust words of American Generals with high code of ethics more than some of elected officials who are connected to many interest groups that they are working against National Interest of American people....

Oppenheimer wrote:

How do I say this politely? Ledeen is full of S-&-!-T, has no credibility with me at all, proving himself a self-serving political hack hanging onto the coattails of the Iranian opposition for his dear political life and the bread and butter on his table.....I ask nothing for my efforts, so can be bought by no one, and that makes me a truly dangerous and credible force for the truth.

I don’t agree with your point of view regarding Dr. Ledeen recent article.
“Did Condoleezza Rice Try to Make a Secret Deal With the Mullahs? A tense confrontation within the Bush administration over the release of the Irbil 5.” http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/michaelledeen/2007/04/25/from_nro_today.php
There are many good points in his article. We should not forget that No one is prefect and is right all the time.
Activists should listen to the truth, good reasons, good logic and don't spin for xyz ...

Oppenheimer wrote:

By the way, thanks for proving some of my points.....believe what you wish at your own risk of shooting your own foot, all I've ever needed was time to prove my words correct, as has been the case on many previous occasions.

My friend in past 28 years the FREE Iran Activists have no friend and no foot to shoot anyway . Only the top officials in high position have foot to shoot by themselves. Anyway as you can see in the following Dance Video clip it is possible to dance with one foot and that is what some officials are doing . This is just for you to laugh and enjoy this excellent dance performance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsz8Uc3enE

Oppenheimer wrote:

Being your friend in solidarity with Iranian freedom means telling you that you need to take a real hard and objective look at what works for you and at what doesn't, and I'm here to tell you that it flat isn't working, not the way you are going about this....

regards,

EJ

Thank you for your friendly advise. We are evaluating both dominating parties and key elected officials using the same following rules that you might agree with it.

Today Simple Rules For Evaluating Foreign Policy and Strategy

Our future expectations from policy makers and leadership are defined with new set of test cases for foreign policy evaluation criteria to be able to measure success and failure results more easily. Our recommended test cases and criteria are based on Cyrus The Great Spirit, the American founding fathers vision, spirit of freedom, US constitution and defined as follows:

1- Have a secular democracy purpose
2- Have a Human Rights purpose
3- Have a Free Society purpose
4- Have a primary effect to increase freedom at global level.
5- Have the element of War Of Ideas to expand public awareness, education and expansion of truth.
6- Have an element of Freedom of Choice
7- Applying the U.S.A. Supreme Court accepted "Lemon test," to foreign policy decisions, strategy and conduct. According to the "Lemon test," in order to be constitutional, a law or public act must: a) Have a secular purpose. b) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion. c) Not result in excessive governmental entanglement with religion.
8- Move towards better unified global fair Justice System.

Oppenheimer wrote:

Why No Regime Change Policy For Iran But Iraq?

1. Iranians in the opposition have been insistant on doing this themselves without foreign intervention...(IE war)... for many years on.

2. Iranians in the opposition have long said that if attacked in an attempt to out the regime, that this would be exactly what the regime needs to strengthen its hand against the people, and ensure internal support.

3. Iranians in the opposition have asked for sanctions and freezing of assets, arms embargo against the regime as essential international support instead of military intervention.

Too little too late after after 4 years

Oppenheimer wrote:

Now what do you want Cyrus, now that the international community has honored your wishes, a war?

Too little too late after after 4 years and Dr. Rice allowed EU3 play all kind of games with Mullahs.
Anyway FREE Iran Activists positions are defined in following petitions ...

Military intervention? Rice in so many words said to Fatima (and why you can claim her to be Tazzi for asking a fair question is beyond me) that this is something that should come from within (again agreeing with the Iranian opposition community long standing wishes in doing so), yet you accuse Ms. Rice of appeasement?

I don’t accuse Dr. Rice of appeasement her actions and advise to president in past 7 years speak for itself.

Please don't spin for her, after 6 years she has her own records that speak for itself. Dr. Rice failed in Iraq policy, Iran Policy and War on Terror policy ....
I wish she would have been successful in all of them but the truth can not be ignored ....

Oppenheimer wrote:

You wouldn't bother to read her statements unless I had bolded them....

Dr. Rice deeds does not match her words. Dr. Rice has discredited herself for some of reasons will be defined below.

Oppenheimer wrote:

well now that is a responsible fellow....seeing as how staying informed is the only way you are ever going to understand anything other than what the media wants you to understand....and that my friend is a total and oblivious cop-out to activism itself regardless of whether you personally have lost faith....you are simply helping others lose the will to fight....get it?

I know, this sounds like a pretty harsh condemnation from a friend...and it is....but it is the truth as well, and son, I'm here once again to rip your blinders off, before you too take a dive over oblivion's cliff.

Thank me later, but do everyone a real service and get yourself an attitude makeover......Ms. Beckett is not responsible for the regime, the regime is responsible for the regime, and the regime is the criminal.

That is all other than to say this is the last time I want to have this conversation with you, as I personally expect better from an intelligent mind such as your's.

Take care,

EJ

Now lets review Dr. Rice Performance as National Security Adviser, Secretary Of State, and Top Adviser to President:

1) Dr. Rice as top adviser and confident of President Bush had key responsibilities for past 6 years failures in foreign policies.

2) Sept 11 happened When Dr. Rice was National Security Adviser:
Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke, in testimony before the 9/11 commission, gave differing views of events leading up to September 11, 2001.
Condoleezza Rice and Richard Clarke, in testimony before the 9/11 commission, gave differing views of events leading up to September 11, 2001.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html

3) For first time after 6 years we hear from Dr. Rice that their past 6 years policy of the Bush administration was based on the fact that they were not looking for a regime change in Iran but to have a change in regime behavior. As result of such a bad policy or intentional evil policy Iraq policy and War on Terror policy failed.

4) Afghanistan was military success but not political win because of bad non secular policy of Khalilzad is reporting to Dr. Rice ..

My conclusion Dr. Rice might be very good Stanford Professor in Russian studies but after over 6 years as National Security adviser and State Dept. Secretary and top adviser to president for defining Iraq, Iran and War on Terror policies , we can say Dr. Rice has failed in all of them due to her poor judgment and pushing for non secular democracy before establishing secure Free Societies in Iraq and Afghanistan and not helping Iranian people to change the regime .....

Last edited by cyrus on Fri Apr 27, 2007 5:55 pm; edited 4 times in total

WAKE UP - the following is the Dr. Rice past 6 years bad policy outcome of change in regime behavior:

Quote:

'Mullah's Quds Force Helped Kill 5 US Troops in Iraq'

Source: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=81780
US General David Petraeus, head of the coalition forces in Iraq, accused Iran's secretive Quds Force Thursday of helping an armed network that killed five US soldiers in January in the Shiite shrine city of Kerbala. Petraeus acknowledged in Washington that a complex and "very tough" situation existed in Iraq, but also accused Iran's Quds Force of helping an Iraqi network to murder five US soldiers in Kerbala

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi wrote:

Video of Iranian teenage girl being dragged away by regime disciplinary forces for not being dressed according to the Islamic Republic's dress code. PLEASE pass this on to everyone you know. She is is SCREAMING and crying saying that she doesn't want to go. PEOPLE WAKE UP...this is Iran...people go to prison for wearing clothes that in the west no one will give a second thought to! Courtesy of Iran Press News:http://youtube.com/watch?v=gj7_q97dqek

cyrus wrote:

IRAN: 150,000 WOMEN DETAINED FOR BREAKING DRESS CODEhttp://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.408604684&par=0
Tehran, 26 April (AKI) - Some 150,000 women have been detained in Iran for violating strict new Islamic dress code rules, the country's top police officer has announced. "During the first four days [since the code came into effect] we have picked up 150,000 women who were not properly veiled, but many of them were released after they signed an admission of guilt and a formal apology," General Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam told journalists. An unspecified number of the women taken into custody were also forced to undergo psychological counseling, Moghaddam said.

Quote:

The following video clip says it all about past 6 years failed Diplomacy with Rapist Mullahs by Dr. Rice and others …. :

(Rome) A death penalty free world is possible if key governments are willing to show political leadership, said Irene Khan, Amnesty International's Secretary General.

"Amnesty International is calling for a universal moratorium on executions. Only six countries -- Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Pakistan, the USA and China -- were responsible for 91 percent of all executions carried out in 2006. These hard core executioners are isolated and out of tune with global trends," said Ms Khan.

In 1977 only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Thirty years on, the number of abolitionist countries continues to rise which is creating a momentum to end capital punishment. In 2006, the Philippines was the latest to join the 99 countries that have abolished the death penalty for ordinary crimes. Many more, including South Korea, stand on the brink of abolition.

In Africa only six countries carried out executions in 2006. Belarus is the only country that continues to use the death penalty in Europe. The USA is the only country in the Americas to have carried out any executions since 2003.

According to Amnesty International figures, the number of executions worldwide fell from 2,148 in 2005 to 1,591 in 2006.

Iraq joined the list of the world's top executioners in 2006. The use of capital punishment has increased rapidly following its reinstatement in Iraq in mid-2004. Since then, more than 270 people have been sentenced to death and at least 100 people have reportedly been executed. There were no executions reported in 2004 and at least three men were executed in 2005. In 2006, global attention on the televised hanging of Saddam Hussein in December belied the reality that the execution rate in Iraq had dramatically escalated over the year with more than 65 hangings, of which at least two of those put to death were women.

Iran's execution rate nearly doubled compared to 2005, with at least 177 people killed. In 2006, Pakistan joined the list of top executioners with at least 82 executions. Sudan executed at least 65 people, with the true number believed to be higher, and 53 people were executed in 12 states across the USA. Iran and Pakistan were the only countries that executed child offenders during 2006 – in violation of international law -- four and one respectively.

China continues to be the world's top executioner. Amnesty International recorded more than 1,000 executions in China in 2006. Figures on the use of the death penalty are a state secret in China and the true number is believed to be as high as 8,000.

"The 2006 death penalty figures are inexcusable but even officials in Iraq and China, two of the world's top-executioners, have spoken of their desire to see an end to the use of the death penalty in their respective countries," said Irene Khan.

Amnesty International also highlights a number of cases which expose the cruel, arbitrary and unfair nature of the death penalty and the appalling suffering caused by every execution:

Sri Lankan national Sanjaya Rowan Kumara was executed last November in Kuwait. He was initially declared dead immediately after the hanging, but when he was taken to the morgue, medical staff noticed he was still moving. Further examinations found a weak heartbeat. He was eventually pronounced dead five hours after the execution had begun.
In the US last December, Florida Governor Jeb Bush suspended all executions in the state and appointed a commission “to consider the humanity and constitutionality of lethal injections”. The decision came after the execution of Angel Diaz, who suffered for 34 minutes before being pronounced dead. It was later discovered that the deadly chemicals had been injected into soft tissue rather than the vein.
In Iran, a man and a woman were stoned to death last May for having sex outside of marriage -- despite a moratorium on executions by stoning declared by the Head of the Judiciary in 2002. In Iran, the size of the stones are predetermined so as not to cause instant death but to kill slowly.

The ever present danger of executing those innocent of the crime for which they were condemned exists wherever the death penalty is used. In 2006, three people were declared innocent after spending years on death row in Jamaica, Tanzania and the USA.

Around 20,000 people are estimated to be currently on death row across the world, waiting to be killed by the state.

"The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. It is arbitrary, it has proven ineffective in reducing crime and it perpetuates a climate of violence in which justice can never be truly achieved," said Irene Khan.

"The death penalty must be abolished and a universal moratorium will be an important step forward", said Ms Khan.

Thousands of Iranian women have been cautioned over their poor Islamic dress this week and several hundred arrested in the capital Tehran in the most fierce crackdown on what's known as "bad hijab" for more than a decade. It is the talk of the town. The latest police crackdown on Islamic dress has angered many Iranians - male, female, young and old.

But Iranian TV has reported that an opinion poll conducted in Tehran found 86% of people were in favour of the crackdown - a statistic that is surprising given the strength of feeling against this move.

Police cars are stationed outside major shopping centres in Tehran.

They are stopping pedestrians and even cars - warning female drivers not show any hair - and impounding the vehicles and arresting the women if they argue back.

Middle-aged women, foreign tourists and journalists have all been harassed, not just the young and fashionably dressed.

Individual choice

Overnight the standard of what is acceptable dress has slipped back.

Hard-won freedoms - like the right to wear a colourful headscarf - have been snatched away.

It may sound trivial but Iranian women have found ways of expressing their individuality and returning to drab colours like black, grey and dark blue is not something they will accept easily.

"If we want to do something we will do it anyway, all this is total nonsense," says a young girl, heavily made up and dressed up.

She believes Islamic dress should be something personal - whether you're swathed in a black chador or dressed in what she calls "more normal clothes".

Interestingly many women who choose to wear the all enveloping chador agree - saying it's a personal choice and shouldn't be forced on people.

"This year is much worse than before because the newspapers and the TV have given the issue a lot of coverage compared to last year; it wasn't this bad before," says Shabnam who's out shopping with her friend.

Permission denied

At the start of every summer the police say they will enforce the Islamic dress code, but this year has been unusually harsh.

Thousands of women have been cautioned by police over their dress, some have been obliged to sign statements that they will do better in the future, and some face court cases against them.

Though the authorities want coverage internally to scare women - they don't want the story broadcast abroad.

The BBC's cameraman was detained when he tried to film the police at work and the government denied us permission to go on patrol with the police.

"Really we don't have any security," complains Shabam's friend Leyla.

"Since we came out this morning many people we met have continuously warned us to be careful about our headscarves and to wear them further forward because they are arresting women who are dressed like this," she says.

Boutique owners are furious. Some shops have been sealed - others warned not to sell tight revealing clothing.

One shopkeeper selling evening dresses told us the moral police had ordered him to saw off the breasts of his mannequins because they were too revealing.

He said he wasn't the only shop to receive this strange instruction.

Respect

There's even been less traffic on the streets because some women are not venturing out - fearful they will be harassed.

And it's not even safe in a car. Taxi agencies have received a circular warning them not to carry a "bad hijabi".

"They have said we shouldn't carry passengers who wear bad Islamic dress and if we do we have to warn them to respect the Islamic dress code even inside the car," said one taxi driver.

And it's not just women who are being targeted this year.

Young men are being cautioned for wearing short sleeved shirts or for their hairstyles.

Morad - a hairdresser whose gelled hair is made to stand straight up - says it's necessary for him to look like this to attract customers.

"These last few days I don't dare walk down the main roads looking like this case I get arrested," he says.

"I use the side streets and alleys."

Morad is scared because his friends have told him they've seen the police seize young men and forcibly cut their hair if it's too long.

Fifteen-year-old Tofiq who'd also gelled his hair to stand on end said he too was afraid but he wasn't going to change.

"I want the whole world to know that they oppress us and all we can do is put up with it," he said.

Some parents have complained that harassing the young over their clothing will only push them to leave the country.

But one MP has said those Iranians who cannot cope with Islamic laws should leave.

Some commentators have suggested that the government is conducting this crackdown to distract attention from the rising cost of living in Iran and increasing tension with the international community over the nuclear issue.

If so, it's a strategy that risks alienating people who've got used to years of relative social freedom and do not want to return to the early days of the revolution when dress rules were much more tightly enforced.

cyrus wrote:

Why did Ahmadinejad personally decided to inaugurate the impounding of Sivand Dam? By Professor E. Nooriala

This is a quick but ... all » comprehensive analysis of the situation, in three parts Why experts oppose the impounding of Sivand Dam? Why Ahmadinejad administration insists in impounding the dam despite all such evidences? What happens next?

Why experts oppose the impounding of Sivand Dam?

1. Cultural Reasons a. The uniqueness of Pasargad plains b. The importance of Cyrus the Great mausoleum

2. Environmental Reasons: a. The type of the soil that is mixture of salt and sand and is very absorbent of water, thus, capable of spreading the underground waters. b. The Dam will dry the unique lakes of the region that are fed by the Polvar River, destroying the habitat of rare birds. d. The weight of the lake sitting over a site that had a few faults will widen the faults and could create the possibility of big earthquakes.

Technical Reasons: a. The Dam is built on the bed of river sediments and would not prevent the penetration of waters from under it. Once this shortcoming was discovered IRI has spent a lot of money to a Chinese firm for injecting cement in to the base of the dam. This reinforcement has not yet been tested. In similar cases, such after-fact action has not been totally successful. b. The topographical calculations are not correct, according to independent Iranian engineers. The mausoleum of Cyrus is in fact about 10 meters under the crown of the dam and if Sivand is fully impounded it will drown the mausoleum. The Ministry of Energy is already talking about the impossibility of full impounding which means the Dam cannot be fully operational for agricultural purposes. c. The water of the lake made by Sivand dam will push the salt content of the soil to the surface and will ruin the present agriculture.

So, why Ahmadinejad administration insists in impounding the dam despite all such evidences?

General Reasons:a. The Pasdaran Army that has acted as the builder of the Dam has worked on Bolaghy Gorge for 15 years and has plunder its treasures. Now they want to cover the evidence.
b. IRI has become sensitive to what it calls Soft Destabilization that is women's movement, student's protests and so on. It has become very sensitive to the tide of protests against the Sivand Dam and is circumventing such endeavors.
c. IRI authorities believe that backing off in cases where people are demanding a specific issue would be seen as a great victory against the regime. So, it tries to discourage such sentiments.

Hidden Reasons:
a. The true responsible people in Rafsanjani and Khatami administrations are trying to wash their hands by encouraging Ahmadi-nejad that has become an expendable entity. b. This is seen as an effective way of demoting the importance of pre-Islamic era. c. Now that the Leader of IRI has declared the new Iranian Year as the Year of National Unity, this action implicitly announces that the pre-Islamic culture and history is not a part of the National Unity he has in mind.

What happens next? a. Everything happening now - like impounding Sivand in a time of the year when there is not water in Polvar River, or attaching women in the streets of Tehran and so on – tells me that Ahmadinejad is intentionally creating social turmoil. This is usually done in IRI when some kind of back off is going to be announced and they don't want people to focus on such development. They have to be engaged in other matters. b. It all depends on the reaction of Iranian people. It is a kind of silent referendum and Ahmadinejad will claim victory if no reaction is detectable on the part of the people. c. But if people show detectable sensitivity and the tide of reactions goes up, then those in shadow (even the Leader himself) would use Ahmadinejad as a sacrificial lamb and try to become national heroes. e. The rest is wishful thinking….

This lecture by Iranian Scholar Professor Esmail Nooriala is considered as educational material and highly recommended by ActivistChat.com . This is 19th lecture, part of weekly lecture series in Persian from site http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/Esmail.htm . If you wish to invite Professor Esmail Nooriala for lecture in English or Persian regarding different Iranian cultural or Political subjects please contact Professor Nooriala directly by Fax: 509-352-9630 esmail@nooriala.com or http://www.puyeshgaraan.com/ES.Contacts.htm

Last edited by cyrus on Sat Apr 28, 2007 11:26 am; edited 6 times in total

Azad Andish :
Ms Rice and her ex and current counterparts in the EU are trying hard (and very eagerly) to let all the totalitarian/terrorist governments in the globe understand how they should deal with the West.Ms Rice et al are propagating the idea that mullahs' way of confronting the West is the best. The formula is quite simple:
Kill as many Americans you like, destroy as many Western entities you wish, say all their decisions as well as UNSC's are rabbish, and in return they overthrow your enemies (like Saddam) and bestow the power to your puppets and help you get control of the region in a few years.
I wish I could understand the mentality of the US administration and policy makers in trying to prove that the US is a paper tiger ( as mullahs proclaim ).
Dear US administration !
As an Iranian living in Iran I am no more expecting to get any help from you in changing mullahs regime but as an honest piece of advice I propose that you don't surrender to mullahs so quickly. You have enough time and mullahs will forgive you even if takes a year or so. Kneel down and ask Khamenei to help you in Iraq but keep in mind that when his son comes to the Washington DC to take over the presidency in the White House in 2020 you need to put a scarf over the head of the Statue of Liberty.

Apr 26, 2007 06:43 AM

Winston wrote:

Winston :
You may not believe it but I got emails from Iran with head-titles like Marg bar Rice (Death To Rice) for saying the US doesn;t seek regime change in Iran.

It sounded very disappointing to lots of people

ML:

Of course I believe it. It's disgusting.

Apr 26, 2007 07:19 PM

Michael Ledeen April 25, 2007 10:10 AM From NRO today

Dr. Michael Ledeen wrote:

April 25, 2007, 9:22 a.m.

Did Condoleezza Rice Try to Make a Secret Deal With the Mullahs?
A tense confrontation within the Bush administration over the release of the Irbil 5.

By Michael Ledeen

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose tenure at Foggy Bottom began with such energy and fine language about support for freedom in the Middle East, is begging the Iranian foreign minister to come to a “future of Iraq” conference in Egypt next week. She told the Financial Times that it would be a “missed opportunity” if Minister Mottaki didn’t show up.

In the same interview, she denied ever thinking about regime change in Iran. Our Iran policy, according to the secretary, is to “have a change in regime behavior.” Some day she will perhaps explain how any rational person can believe this cast of characters capable of changing behavior that has been constant for 28 years.

We are back to the days when Madeleine Albright went to international meetings hoping to get a one-on-one with an Iranian minister so she could apologize for past American sins and get on with the glorious business of striking a grand bargain with the mullahs. When that didn’t work, President Clinton did the public apology, and his administration trotted out a number of unilateral concessions. His vice president even made a secret deal with the Russians permitting them to sell weapons and supply expertise for the Iranian nuclear program. All for naught; the mullahs spat in our face and continued as before.

The delusion that one can settle our little disagreements with the Islamic Republic, if only the right people sit around the right conference table, has seized every administration since Jimmy Carter. Every president has sent emissaries to talk, and every administration has made demarches to Tehran. To date, the net result is hundreds of dead Americans. And yet the delusion persists. Each time it fails, the deep thinkers at Foggy Bottom manage to convince the secretary of State of the moment that we are just one small concession away from success, and by and large the secretary goes for it, just as Secretary Rice has.

That is part of the background to her public pleading for talks with the mullahs. The other part has to do with the release of the British sailors and marines from captivity in Tehran. It was obvious to anyone familiar with the methods of the Islamic Republic that the British hostages were ransomed; the only question was the dimension of the payoff to Iran. Part of the answer emerged almost immediately, when an officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps magically appeared safe and sound somewhere in Iraq, and hotfooted it back home. Within hours, Iraqi officials were publicly hinting that the incarceration of the “Irbil 5” — more top IRGC intel officers captured by American forces, along with extensive documentation of their murderous activities in Iraq — would likely end quite soon. Why were they saying that?

The answer may be found between the lines of a story written shortly afterwards by one of Secretary Rice’s favorite journalists, Robin Wright of the Washington Post. It didn’t attract nearly the attention it deserved, perhaps because it was printed on Saturday, April 14 (full marks to Allahpundit over at Hot Air for spotting it). Here is what Robin Wright said:

After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents (sic) captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.

I’ve been told that “intense internal debate” is exactly right — it was one of the most contentious debates in quite a while. Wright reports that Vice President Cheney led the charge against Rice’s position, and I am told that Secretary of Defense Gates was equally adamant. This is reinforced by a statement by General Petraeus, to the effect that we intended to keep them and keep interrogating them as long as we had food and they had things to say. Moreover, I am told that the intensity of the debate was due to the fact that Rice was not merely recommending the release of the Iranians, but had informed the mullahs that we would release them.

That makes sense to me, because that promise — if indeed it was made — would help explain the release of the Brits. It would constitute the kind of swap the Iranians like to make, and it would have been a significant triumph for the mullahs: They had lost some of their key players in Iraq, and we would have paid them off as a favor to our British pals. Tony Blair would be able to claim straight-faced that he had made no concessions, and Condoleezza Rice would be able to claim, as she has of late in private conversation, that the Iranians had backed off.

You can be quite sure that the back-channel traffic between Washington and Tehran is full of new promises, if only the Iranians will come to Egypt and sit down with us. That would enable the secretary of State to save face when she makes her next concession. After all, we’re talking, aren’t we?

It’s too clever by half, and has obviously confused the president, who, in an interview with Charlie Rose, said we wouldn’t talk to them, but then again, perhaps we would (and Allahpundit spotted it again):

“What I’m not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians,” he told PBS’ “The Charlie Rose Show.”

Later, he said Rice and Iran’s foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. “They could. They could,” Bush said.

President Ahmadinejad was quick to pounce on the confusion. Never mind the talks in Egypt; he pronounced himself ready to meet with Bush, and with journalists in the room.

It’s worse than too clever. It’s retreat and appeasement, and the Iranians know it. It flows from denial that the mullahs are at war with us, and lapses into the belief that this war can be resolved by the tried and failed methods of traditional diplomacy. It won’t work, as our soldiers know full well. Surge or no surge, Iraq cannot have decent security unless it is protected against the Iranians and their Syrian puppets bordering the other side of the country. The Irbil 5 know a whole lot about Iranian/Syrian activities, and hence about the terror network in Iraq — in fact, they ran it — and that knowledge can help us and the Iraqis. The very idea that those intelligence officers should be sprung is a slap in the face to every coalition soldier, and Gates and Cheney were quite right to fight it.

A small victory, to be sure. But it’s a lot better than it would have been if the secretary of State had had her way. Years from now she may be grateful for it.

Think Again: Condoleezza Rice
By Marcus Mabry May/June 2007
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/users/login.php?story_id=3781&URL=http://www.foreignpolicy.com“Condi Is a Bush Loyalist”
For now. One of the secrets to the spectacular rise of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is that every boss she has ever worked for was convinced that she shared his worldview. And each, after she left his employ, was left scratching his head as he saw Rice make a 180degree turn away from the core beliefs he thought they shared. It happened with former National Security Advisor (NSA) Brent Scowcroft, who thought Rice was a rockribbed realist only to see her become the most ardent acolyte of idealist President George W. Bush and his “Freedom Agenda.” It even happened with former Stanford University President Gerhard Casper, for whom Rice served as provost and vice president—Stanford’s number two—and with her college political science professor Alan Gilbert, a leftist who says of Rice, “[Her interest] wasn’t really Great Power realism. If I had to put her in a category, I’d say she was closer to Marxist.”

More surprising than Gilbert’s assertion that Rice was a radical is the frequency with which you hear the same refrain: Across the political spectrum, many of Rice’s former bosses now question whether she ever identified with them at all. Rice’s central philosophy is power—not realist or idealist or Marxist, but personal power. She does what she has to in order to achieve it in whatever situation she finds herself, and, throughout her career, some would argue, opportunistically conformed to her mentors’ opinions in order to rise. “She did this with me and...

(CNN) -- Fifteen days after former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke testified before the 9/11 commission, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice made her case before the panel.

Here are excerpts from their testimony on several key issues before the commission.

What did Bush know and what did he do?
CLARKE: President Bush was regularly told by the director of Central Intelligence that there was an urgent threat. ... On one of those occasions, he asked for a strategy to deal with the threat....

[Rice's] looking into it and the president asking for it did not change the pace at which it was considered. And as far as I know, the president never asked again.

[The threat level in summer 2001] exceeded anything that [CIA director] George Tenet or I had ever seen.

RICE: From January 20 [2001] through September 10 [2001], the president received at [daily intelligence briefings] more than 40 briefing items on al Qaeda, and 13 of those were in response to questions he or his top advisers posed.

The threat-reporting that we received in the spring and summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al Qaeda activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa. In fact, the information that was specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist operations overseas.

Most often, though, the threat reporting was frustratingly vague.

How high a priority was terrorism?
CLARKE: George Tenet and I tried very hard to create a sense of urgency by seeing to it that intelligence reports on the al Qaeda threat were frequently given to the president and other high-level officials. And there was a process under way to address al Qaeda.

But although I continued to say it was an urgent problem, I don't think it was ever treated that way. My view was that this administration, while it listened to me, didn't either believe me that there was an urgent problem or was unprepared to act as though there were an urgent problem.

RICE: President Bush understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al Qaeda one attack at a time. He told me he was tired of swatting flies....

One doesn't have the luxury of dealing only with one issue if you are the United States of America. There are many urgent and important issues. But we all had a strong sense that this was a very crucial issue.

How did the Clinton and Bush administrations' approaches differ?
CLARKE: My impression was that fighting terrorism, in general, and fighting al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration -- certainly no higher priority. There were priorities probably of equal importance such as the Middle East peace process, but I certainly don't know of one that was any higher in the priority of that administration.

I believe the Bush administration in the first eight months considered terrorism an important issue, but not an urgent issue.

RICE: The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority. ...

On an operational level, therefore, we decided immediately to continue to pursue the Clinton administration's covert action authority and other efforts to fight the network. ... We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy to try and eliminate the al Qaeda network.

How does the war in Iraq fit into the war on terror?
CLARKE: The war in Iraq was not necessary. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the United States. And by going to war with Iraq, we have greatly reduced our possibility to prosecute the war on terrorism.

RICE: I believe we will change the nature of the Middle East, particularly if there are examples that this can work in the Middle East. And this is why Iraq is so important.

The Iraqi people are struggling to find a way to create a multiethnic democracy that works. ... When they succeed, I think we will have made a big change -- they will have made a big change in the middle of the Arab world, and we will be on our way to addressing the source [of terrorism].

Could more have been done to prevent 9/11?
CLARKE: Let me compare 9/11 and the period immediately before it to the millennium rollover and the period immediately before that. ... Every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information.

Contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the president ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.

RICE: There was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would have been better information about threats inside the United States -- something made very difficult by structural and legal impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

Why didn't Bush respond to the USS Cole bombing?
CLARKE: I suggested, beginning in January of 2001, that ... there was an open issue which should be decided about whether or not the Bush administration should retaliate for the Cole attack [which occurred in October 2000].

Unfortunately, there was no interest, no acceptance of that proposition. And I was told on a couple of occasions, "Well, you know, that happened on the Clinton administration's watch."

I didn't think it made any difference. I thought the Bush administration, now that it had the CIA saying it was al Qaeda, should have responded.

RICE: I do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the Cole, given the kinds of options that we were going to have. ... We really thought that the Cole incident was passed, that you didn't want to respond tit-for-tat. ...

Just responding to another attack in an insufficient way we thought would actually probably embolden the terrorists -- they had been emboldened by everything else that had been done to them -- and that the best course was to look ahead to a more aggressive strategy against them.

Did the decision-making process delay action against terrorism?
CLARKE: In the Bush administration I ... and my committee, the counterterrorism security group, report to the deputies committee, which is a sub-cabinet level committee. ...

It slowed [the process] down enormously, by months.

RICE: I just don't believe that bringing the principals over to the White House every day and having their counterterrorism people have to come with them and be pulled away from what they were doing to disrupt was a good way to go about this. It wasn't an efficient way to go about it.

"I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us."

(CBS) Ex-CIA Director George Tenet says the way the Bush administration has used his now famous "slam dunk" comment — which he admits saying in reference to making the public case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — is both disingenuous and dishonorable.

It also ruined his reputation and his career, he tells 60 Minutes Scott Pelley in his first network television interview. Pelley's report will be broadcast Sunday, April 29, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

In the television interview, Tenet takes special exception with Bush's comments, telling "60 Minutes" that he will "never believe that what happened that day informed the president's view or belief of the legitimacy or the timing of this war. Never!" White House planning for the invasion had been far along by then, Tenet said, with military and logistical plans near completion.

Tenet said that the description offered first to Woodward and then repeated by senior administration officials, including Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, was "the most despicable thing that ever happened to me."

"You don't do this," Tenet said. "You don't throw somebody overboard just because it's a deflection. Is that honorable? It's not honorable to me."

Tenet said "the hardest part of all this has been just listening to this for almost three years. You listen to that and they never let it go. I mean, I became campaign talk. I was a talking point." He accused his former colleagues of being disingenuous and called on them to "just get up and tell the truth. Tell the American people what really happened."

WASHINGTON - After two years of silence on his role in the Iraq war, former CIA Director George J. Tenet is using a new book and a series of television appearances to accuse the White House of making him a scapegoat and of ignoring CIA warnings that Iraq was sinking into chaos.
In an 60 Minutes interview taped to air Sunday on CBS, Tenet said President Bush had made up his mind to invade Iraq long before the CIA director made his infamous Oval Office remark that the case against Saddam Hussein's government was a "slam dunk."

Tenet was even more forceful in his criticism of Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, saying they had destroyed his reputation by repeatedly using the "slam dunk" line to blame him for the decision to go to war.

Political nature has, by slavery of shortsightedness, dictated numerous courses that have in retrospect found to be not only fallacious but also immoral. Although thousands of such examples can be cited throughout history, only three such examples will be given in this article. These three are picked, because all involve the US as a party and are relatively recent.

1. The Mujahedin

As Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union, Islamic fundamentalists rushed in from the region to defend the predominantly Islamic nation from the advancing infidel. The task seemed almost lost from the beginning, as a rag-tag band of impoverished and unorganized fighters attempted to defy one of the world’s two superpowers of the time.

Fortunately for them, that once supreme superpower was tenaciously antagonistic towards the other, which meant that the other superpower was always looking to undermine anything the other did. The US was therefore not far away from this conflict between the Mujahedin of Afghanistan and the Infidels of the USSR.

Shortsighted political nature dictated that the US should support the enemy of its enemy. Such action may prove beneficial for the present and immediate future, but it is not always the soundest recourse if the long-term future is considered.

Shortly, the US was knee deep in fighting this proxy war with the USSR. US funding, military training, military supplies, and logistical support were placed at the fingertips of the Warriors of God, in order to punish and repel the Communists. Within those ranks was, of course, the blooming Osama bin Laden. The training and support that was given to these Mujahedin helped them expel the Soviets, and placed them at a powerful position within Afghanistan, and later, globally as Al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda, the groomed puppy of the US, would grow up to rabidly bite the hand that fed it years later. The scar of that bite is now visible in Manhattan, and on the psyche of every American.

2. Saddam

Hostage taking, chants of “death to America,” and the vow to extend fundamental Islamic Revolution throughout the world was enough to scare the US into picking another junkyard dog to fend off the now hostile Iranians. Political nature, again through shortsightedness, dictated an allegiance with a shady character – Saddam.

Financial, military, and logistical support again poured into the hands of a criminal in order to combat a greater perceived threat. What’s worse and unforgivable is that a blind eye was turned to an utterly immoral occurrence: the use of chemical weapons by Saddam against Iranians. Don Rumsfeld visited Saddam personally, shook his hand, and gave him a nod of approval with his beady little eyes. That photograph, along with the countless others of disfigured bodies of Iranians and Kurds from chemical attacks, will forever haunt the psyche of every Iranian, if not every human.

Years later, with a slight change of political climate, the once again rabid dog that the US kept as a pet was identified for what it truly was, and was itself attacked. However, by that time, that Iraqi dictator had already done too much damage, and the wrongs of the past could not be rectified.

3. The Islamic Republic

In the present we are potentially witnessing the once again political shortsightedness and desperation of US policy. In its attempt to deal with the error of example #2, the US went to war with Saddam’s Iraq. After 4 years of turmoil and occupation, the US has found itself chasing shadows. A demoralized US constituency and Congress demands every day that the US abandon its efforts in Iraq, which appear fruitless to most.

Out of the fiasco of this Iraqi invasion has emerged an Islamic Republic with more power and boldness than ever. It is a vicious cycle, whereby the civil turmoil leads to loss of US authority and influence, which leads to more Islamic chaotic authority, which enables further civil turmoil and so forth.

In its predicament, the US appears to be reaching at straws. The political need for immediate gratification has apparently influenced the man who once called the IR part of an Axis of Evil to reconsider his call for outright demolition of that axis, and simply ask that the axis kindly reorient its angle. This is echoed in the words of Rice, who said that the Bush administration is not looking for a regime change in Iran but to “have a change in regime behavior."

Political shortsightedness knows no bounds. The historical errors of the US follow each other, and it seems that one has actually led to another. To change stance with regard to such a regime will only prolong the inevitable showdown of the US with the Mullahs. Such prolongation and retreat will only lead to the emergence of a more powerful, determined, and emboldened enemy to face in the future.

Elected politicians have a responsibility to not only serve and protect their nation, but to follow a moral path. Many a times have politicians allowed morality to take a back seat to their shortsighted goals. Every time, such a policy has proven to be a mistake both pragmatically as well as morally. This is why elected officials need to be held to a higher moral standard and of higher philosophical character than what is currently deemed acceptable.

Aligning itself with the likes of Mujahedin and Saddam has been a pragmatic and moral mistake. The immoral enemy of my enemy ought not be my friend. Why? First, because morality must be a main goal in and of itself. Second, because the immoral enemy of my enemy will eventually come after me once our common enemy has been neutralized. History is a witness to this.

I have cited two examples of the past, where the US’ need for immediate gratification proved disastrous in the long term. Currently, the third example is unfolding. It is too late for the first two, but the third error in the making can yet be averted, should the US choose to reconsider its currently charted course with respect to Iran.

A rabid dog will bite by nature. One cannot tell it to change its biting behavior, and expect to safely lie down next to it after making such a statement. A rabid dog must be neutralized. Requests and appeals made to it will be in vain. An axis cannot change its angle, and a dog cannot cease to be rabid.

Dear Mr. AmirN,
Thank you for your excellent article, hope the narcissistic and power-hungry opportunist whose primary goal was the glorification of her own by destroying his colleague reputation and other future leaders learn something from this very educational article.
Superb Educational Article
Regards,
Cyrus

Last edited by cyrus on Mon Apr 30, 2007 6:57 pm; edited 1 time in total

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, whose tenure at Foggy Bottom began with such energy and fine language about support for freedom in the Middle East, is begging the Iranian foreign minister to come to a “future of Iraq” conference in Egypt next week. She told the Financial Times that it would be a “missed opportunity” if Minister Mottaki didn’t show up.

In the same interview, she denied ever thinking about regime change in Iran. Our Iran policy, according to the secretary, is to “have a change in regime behavior.” Some day she will perhaps explain how any rational person can believe this cast of characters capable of changing behavior that has been constant for 28 years.

We are back to the days when Madeleine Albright went to international meetings hoping to get a one-on-one with an Iranian minister so she could apologize for past American sins and get on with the glorious business of striking a grand bargain with the mullahs. When that didn’t work, President Clinton did the public apology, and his administration trotted out a number of unilateral concessions. His vice president even made a secret deal with the Russians permitting them to sell weapons and supply expertise for the Iranian nuclear program. All for naught; the mullahs spat in our face and continued as before.

The delusion that one can settle our little disagreements with the Islamic Republic, if only the right people sit around the right conference table, has seized every administration since Jimmy Carter. Every president has sent emissaries to talk, and every administration has made demarches to Tehran. To date, the net result is hundreds of dead Americans. And yet the delusion persists. Each time it fails, the deep thinkers at Foggy Bottom manage to convince the secretary of State of the moment that we are just one small concession away from success, and by and large the secretary goes for it, just as Secretary Rice has.

That is part of the background to her public pleading for talks with the mullahs. The other part has to do with the release of the British sailors and marines from captivity in Tehran. It was obvious to anyone familiar with the methods of the Islamic Republic that the British hostages were ransomed; the only question was the dimension of the payoff to Iran. Part of the answer emerged almost immediately, when an officer in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps magically appeared safe and sound somewhere in Iraq, and hotfooted it back home. Within hours, Iraqi officials were publicly hinting that the incarceration of the “Irbil 5” — more top IRGC intel officers captured by American forces, along with extensive documentation of their murderous activities in Iraq — would likely end quite soon. Why were they saying that?

The answer may be found between the lines of a story written shortly afterwards by one of Secretary Rice’s favorite journalists, Robin Wright of the Washington Post. It didn’t attract nearly the attention it deserved, perhaps because it was printed on Saturday, April 14 (full marks to Allahpundit over at Hot Air for spotting it). Here is what Robin Wright said:

After intense internal debate, the Bush administration has decided to hold on to five Iranian Revolutionary Guard intelligence agents (sic) captured in Iraq, overruling a State Department recommendation to release them, according to U.S. officials.

I’ve been told that “intense internal debate” is exactly right — it was one of the most contentious debates in quite a while. Wright reports that Vice President Cheney led the charge against Rice’s position, and I am told that Secretary of Defense Gates was equally adamant. This is reinforced by a statement by General Petraeus, to the effect that we intended to keep them and keep interrogating them as long as we had food and they had things to say. Moreover, I am told that the intensity of the debate was due to the fact that Rice was not merely recommending the release of the Iranians, but had informed the mullahs that we would release them.

That makes sense to me, because that promise — if indeed it was made — would help explain the release of the Brits. It would constitute the kind of swap the Iranians like to make, and it would have been a significant triumph for the mullahs: They had lost some of their key players in Iraq, and we would have paid them off as a favor to our British pals. Tony Blair would be able to claim straight-faced that he had made no concessions, and Condoleezza Rice would be able to claim, as she has of late in private conversation, that the Iranians had backed off.

You can be quite sure that the back-channel traffic between Washington and Tehran is full of new promises, if only the Iranians will come to Egypt and sit down with us. That would enable the secretary of State to save face when she makes her next concession. After all, we’re talking, aren’t we?

It’s too clever by half, and has obviously confused the president, who, in an interview with Charlie Rose, said we wouldn’t talk to them, but then again, perhaps we would (and Allahpundit spotted it again):

“What I’m not willing to do is sit down bilaterally with the Iranians,” he told PBS’ “The Charlie Rose Show.”

Later, he said Rice and Iran’s foreign minister might have bilateral conversations at the conference. “They could. They could,” Bush said.

President Ahmadinejad was quick to pounce on the confusion. Never mind the talks in Egypt; he pronounced himself ready to meet with Bush, and with journalists in the room.

It’s worse than too clever. It’s retreat and appeasement, and the Iranians know it. It flows from denial that the mullahs are at war with us, and lapses into the belief that this war can be resolved by the tried and failed methods of traditional diplomacy. It won’t work, as our soldiers know full well. Surge or no surge, Iraq cannot have decent security unless it is protected against the Iranians and their Syrian puppets bordering the other side of the country. The Irbil 5 know a whole lot about Iranian/Syrian activities, and hence about the terror network in Iraq — in fact, they ran it — and that knowledge can help us and the Iraqis. The very idea that those intelligence officers should be sprung is a slap in the face to every coalition soldier, and Gates and Cheney were quite right to fight it.

A small victory, to be sure. But it’s a lot better than it would have been if the secretary of State had had her way. Years from now she may be grateful for it.

Comments (3)
Azad Andish :
Ms Rice and her ex and current counterparts in the EU are trying hard (and very eagerly) to let all the totalitarian/terrorist governments in the globe understand how they should deal with the West. Ms Rice et al are propagating the idea that mullahs' way of confronting the West is the best. The formula is quite simple:
Kill as many Americans you like, destroy as many Western entities you wish, say all their decisions as well as UNSC's are rabbish, and in return they overthrow your enemies (like Saddam) and bestow the power to your puppets and help you get control of the region in a few years.
I wish I could understand the mentality of the US administration and policy makers in trying to prove that the US is a paper tiger ( as mullahs proclaim ).
Dear US administration !
As an Iranian living in Iran I am no more expecting to get any help from you in changing mullahs regime but as an honest piece of advice I propose that you don't surrender to mullahs so quickly. You have enough time and mullahs will forgive you even if takes a year or so. Kneel down and ask Khamenei to help you in Iraq but keep in mind that when his son comes to the Washington DC to take over the presidency in the White House in 2020 you need to put a scarf over the head of the Statue of Liberty.

Apr 26, 2007 06:43 AM

Winston :
You may not believe it but I got emails from Iran with head-titles like Marg bar Rice (Death To Rice) for saying the US doesn;t seek regime change in Iran.

It sounded very disappointing to lots of people

ML:

Of course I believe it. It's disgusting.

Apr 26, 2007 07:19 PM

Cyrus Activistchat :
Thank you Dr. Ledeen for your excellent article. Finally after 6 years we hear clear admission by Dr. Rice that their past 6 years policy of the Bush administration was based on the fact that they were not looking for a regime change in Iran but to have a change in regime behavior. As a result of such a bad policy or intentional evil policy Iraq policy, War on Terror policy has become very expensive for USA . We can see the outcome of Dr. Rice “change in regime behavior” in the following video clip : http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=61353923639894937 40
Dr. Rice might be very good Stanford Professor in Russian studies but after over 6 years as National Security adviser and State Dept. Secretary and top adviser to president for defining Iraq, Iran and War on Terror policies, we have come to conclusion that Dr. Rice has failed in all of them due to her poor judgment and pushing for non secular democracy before establishing secure Free Societies in Iraq, Afghanistan and not helping Iranian people to change the regime before regime change in Iraq .....
If Bush Admin is serious regarding “War on Terror” must show it with real actions by Generals. Not only Irbil 5 should not be released, we expect Gen. David Petraeus order Court-Martial the Irbil 5 for war crimes, Killing American Soldiers, Killing Iraqi People, crime against humanity and International Terror Activities Against freedom-loving Iranians outside Iran ….

Lawmakers approved new subpoenas yesterday for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other Bush administration officials, part of an expanding legal battle between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the administration over issues such as the firings of eight U.S. attorneys and flawed justifications for the war in Iraq.

The subpoena issued to Rice seeks to force her testimony about the claim that Iraq sought to import uranium from Niger for its nuclear weapons program. President Bush offered that as a key rationale for the war in his 2003 State of the Union address. The subpoena was approved by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee along party lines, 21 to 10.

The same panel also issued two subpoenas to the Republican National Committee for testimony and documents related to political presentations at the General Services Administration and the use of RNC e-mail accounts by White House aides, including presidential adviser Karl Rove.

The House Judiciary Committee voted 32 to 6 to grant limited immunity from prosecution to Monica M. Goodling, the former senior counselor and White House liaison for Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. She has invoked her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions about her role in the prosecutor firings. The panel also authorized, but did not issue, a subpoena that would compel her to testify.

And finally in the Senate, the Judiciary Committee authorized a subpoena for Rove deputy Sara Taylor, whose name has appeared among thousands of pages of e-mails and other documents released by the Justice Department in the U.S. attorney firings.

The five subpoenas and related matters, approved over the course of two hours yesterday morning, provided fresh evidence of the remarkable change since Democrats took control of Congress in January. Congressional committees have approved or issued more than two dozen subpoenas, most of them related to the U.S. attorney firings.

"A subpoena is not a request; it's a demand for information," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House oversight committee that issued the bulk of yesterday's subpoenas. "They ought to understand it's no longer a request, it's no longer an option."

The White House signaled that it will continue to resist efforts to secure testimony from Rice, Rove and other aides. Spokesman Tony Fratto said that, in Taylor's case, the committee should reconsider an earlier offer from the White House, which would allow aides to be interviewed without a transcript and not under oath.

The demand for Rice's testimony would put a spotlight on her role as national security adviser in promoting discredited administration claims that Saddam Hussein was pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

"There was one person in the White House who had primary responsibility to get the intelligence about Iraq right -- and that was Secretary Rice, who was then President Bush's national security adviser," Waxman said. "The American public was misled about the threat posed by Iraq, and this committee is going to do its part to find out why."

Rice was flying to Oslo for a meeting with NATO foreign ministers as the committee voted to issue the subpoena. "There is no need for Secretary Rice's testimony," Fratto said, "since the subjects about which the chairman says he wants to ask her have already been exhaustively investigated and addressed on the public record, including by Secretary Rice herself in connection with her confirmation as secretary of state."

He added, "There is a long-standing policy that senior advisers to the president, including the national security adviser, do not testimony before Congress."

A Democratic committee aide rejected that assertion, providing a lengthy list of White House aides, including chiefs of staffs, senior advisers and counsels, who provided testimony to the GOP-run oversight committee during the Clinton administration. He said that if Rice defied the subpoena, the committee and then the full House could vote to find her in contempt before she could litigate a claim of executive privilege. The political costs of such a fight would be too great for Rice or the White House, he said.

Most of yesterday's subpoenas were linked at least tangentially to the U.S. attorney firings, which have sparked an uproar in Congress that has nearly cost Gonzales his job.

In his continuing bid to mend fences on Capitol Hill, Gonzales paid a visit yesterday to Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who angrily took to the Senate floor last month to say that the attorney general had lied to him about the removal of a U.S. attorney in Arkansas. Pryor said after the meeting that he told Gonzales it would be best for the Justice Department if he resigned.

Gonzales will appear again on May 10 before the House Judiciary Committee, the panel announced yesterday. The committee's investigators hope that, by that time, they will have secured an interview with Goodling.

"Ms. Goodling appears to be a key witness for us, as to any possible undue influence or improper interference, and as to any internal discussions as to how forthcoming to be to Congress," said Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).

Fratto and a Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the grant of immunity to Goodling, who resigned from her post earlier this month.

The office of Goodling's attorney, John Dowd, said he declined to comment.

More than half the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee voted to grant Goodling immunity. While he warned that the vote could have serious consequences, Rep. Lamar Smith (Tex.), the committee's ranking Republican, said "the public has a strong interest in knowing the truth in this situation and knowing it now."

Under the deal -- known in legal parlance as "limited-use immunity" -- Goodling could not be prosecuted for anything she truthfully tells Congress. Some Democrats have questioned whether prior testimony to Congress by some senior Justice Department officials, such as Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty, amounted to knowingly making false statements to Congress.

McNulty has acknowledged several misstatements in February testimony, blaming them on poor preparation by Goodling and other aides.

WASHINGTON — Randall Tobias, the deputy secretary of state responsible for U.S. foreign aid, abruptly resigned Friday after his name surfaced in an investigation into a high-priced call-girl ring, U.S. government sources said.

Tobias submitted his resignation a day after he was interviewed by ABC News for an upcoming program about an alleged prostitution service run by the so-called D.C. Madam.

ABC reported on its Web site late Friday that Tobias confirmed he had called the Pamela Martin and Associates escort service to have women come to his condo and give him massages. More recently, Tobias told the network, he has been using a service with Central American women.

Tobias, 65, who is married, told ABC News there had been "no sex" during the women's visits to his condo. His name was on a list of clients given to ABC by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who owns the escort service and has been charged with running a prostitution ring in the nation's capital.

Tobias has been Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's point man in an effort to overhaul how the U.S. government manages foreign aid, a key part of her "transformational diplomacy" agenda.

The Iraqi government is trying to arrange a potentially ground breaking meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Iranian counterpart on the sidelines of a key conference on Iraq due to take place in Egypt later this week, Iraqi officials said Sunday.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said Iraqi officials have been conducting a behind-the-scenes effort to persuade the U.S. and Iran, Iraq's two chief allies but themselves bitter foes, to schedule a bilateral meeting during the conference Thursday and Friday at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik, Egypt. Al-Dabbagh said he is optimistic the initiative will succeed.

"We expect a meeting between Iran and the U.S., and this might help us in Iraq," he said. "We are working hard to have this meeting and we are optimistic it will happen."

Speaking on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday, Rice did not rule out holding a face-to–face meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, suggesting a thaw may soon be possible in the deeply hostile relationship between Iran and the U.S.

"I don't rule out that we'll encounter each other," Rice said when asked whether a bilateral meeting was likely at the conference.

After weeks of hesitation, Iran announced earlier Sunday that it would attend the conference, which is intended as a forum for Iraq's neighbors, along with the United Nations, the U.S. and the rest of the G-8, to establish a regional consensus on ways to stabilize Iraq.

Without Iran, Iraq's largest and most influential neighbor, it is unlikely any serious progress could have been made. Topping the U.S. agenda for the meeting is Washington's allegation that Iran is helping fuel the violence in Iraq by facilitating the supply of weapons, money and sophisticated bombmaking techniques to insurgents.

Iran previously had said it would not attend unless the U.S. released five Iranians detained by American forces in Irbil in January, one of a series of events earlier this year that sent tensions skyrocketing between the historic foes and triggered regional fears that a new war was imminent.

According to U.S. officials in Baghdad, Iraqi officials had been pressuring the United States to free the five detainees so Iran would attend the conference. But Rice insisted the U.S. had made no promises to release the Iranians, whom the U.S. says are senior members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Iran insists are diplomats.

"There was no guarantee. We've talked to the Iraqi government and informed them that the detainees will be dealt with in the normal course," she told CNN.

Shortly after the announcement that Iran would attend, Iran's chief national security official, Ali Larijani, arrived unexpectedly in Baghdad for three days of talks with Iraqi officials, focused on the conference agenda. The issue of a bilateral meeting with the U.S. is one of the items that will be discussed during the visit, said an aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"The Iraqis are pushing for this and are optimistic it will happen. But it's still unofficial," the aide said. "Prime Minister Maliki is personally involved. Maliki has always said to the two countries, 'Take your problems outside Iraq,' and it would be to Iraq's advantage to have the two sides talking."

At present, Rice and Mottaki are scheduled to meet only in a group setting, around the table with other participants, and Iraq is the lone issue on the agenda. If a bilateral meeting does take place, the two will be free to discuss all issues dividing them, including the core problem of Iran's effort to acquire nuclear weapons, al-Dabbagh said.

"There will be no conditions, no agenda. The issue of Iraq will give them a platform to discuss any mutual issues, and we are optimistic we can manage that," he said. "This might help us in Iraq, because when relations are positive between Iran and the U.S., it will be positive for Iraq."

The prospect of an Iranian-U.S. thaw may be wishful thinking on Iraq's part, however. Iraq's Shiite-led government, which relies on U.S. support for its survival but also enjoys a close relationship with Iran, has watched with deep alarm as tensions have soared between its two closest friends, and it has made no secret of its hope that the two sides start talking.

The U.S. has since said repeatedly that it will not talk directly to Iran unless Tehran agrees to suspend its nuclear program, and Iran has said it won't talk to the U.S. unless Washington agrees to set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq, issues on which neither side has shown any inclination to compromise.

"The hostility between Iran and the U.S. is so huge and the issues that divide them are so big," said Joost Hiltermann, director of the International Crisis Group in Amman, Jordan. "There's the nuclear issue, the Iranian influence in Iraq. None of this can be decided at this conference."

Other regional rivalries also threaten to scuttle progress, as was illustrated last week when Saudi Arabia refused to accept a visit by al-Maliki. Iraq's Sunni neighbors are deeply unhappy with the Shiite government's close relationship with Shiite Iran and are threatening to withhold cooperation unless the government does more to accommodate the demands of Iraq's Sunni minority.

If a bilateral meeting does occur, it would mark a significant milestone in the relationship between Washington and Tehran. There has barely been any official contact between the two nations since the 1979 Iranian Revolution brought to power a radical Islamist government, though numerous unofficial channels of communication have periodically emerged, including the Iran-contra effort to exchange arms for U.S. hostages during the 1980s.

In a rare instance of cooperation, Iran and the U.S. worked together with Afghanistan's neighbors to stabilize Afghanistan in the wake of the collapse of the Taliban in 2001, but those channels were severed after President Bush declared Iran a member of the "axis of evil" in 2002.